BEFORE THE
MSHA PANEL
* * * * * * * * *
IN RE: MINE RESCUE TEAMS
PUBLIC HEARING
* * * * * * * * *
BEFORE: PATRICIA W. SILVEY, Chair
Michael Kalich, Member
Tom MacLeod, Member
John Urosek, Member
Cherie Hutchison, Member
Matt Ward, Esquire, Member
Phuc Phan, Member
HEARING: Tuesday, October 30, 2007
9:00 a.m.
LOCATION: Civic Center
Room 105
200 Civic Center Drive
Charleston, WV
WITNESSES: Doug Pauley, James Murray, Kenneth Perdue, Dennis O'Dell, Jeffrey Stanchek
Reporter: Autumn D. Furby
Any reproduction of this transcript
is prohibited without authorization
by the certifying agency.
I N D E X
OPENING REMARKS
By Chair 4 - 13
STATEMENT
By Mr. Pauley 13 - 14
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES 14 - 22
STATEMENT
By Mr. Murray 22 - 28
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES 28 - 39
STATEMENT
By Mr. Perdue 40 - 52
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES 52 - 64
STATEMENT
By Mr. O'Dell 65 - 72
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES 72 - 86
STATEMENT
By Mr. Stanchek 86 - 92
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES 92 - 98
CLOSING REMARKS
By Chair 98 - 99
DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES 99 - 102
CERTIFICATE 103
E X H I B I T S
Page
Number Description Offered
MSHA-1 Mine Rescue Teams Public Hearing
Opening Statement 6
Murray-1 Comments of James Murray 22
Perdue-1 Comments of Kenneth Perdue 40
Stanchek-1 Approximate Costs for Additional
Mine Rescue Stations in Marion
Center 86
P R O C E E D I N G S
------------------------------------------------------
CHAIR:
Good morning. My name is Patricia W. Silvey. I am the Director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances. I will be the moderator of this public hearing on MSHA's proposal for the mine rescue team. On behalf of the Assistant Secretary of labor for Mine Safety and Health, Richard E. Stickler, I want to welcome all of you here today.
The MSHA members of the panel --- and these are the people who are primarily responsible for drafting the proposal. And I must say they do have
--- I want to put it in the record so that the record shows that they have practical mining experience with the mine rescue team, not all of them, but some of them.
To my left, Michael Kalich, and he's from MSHA's Office of Coal Mine Safety and Health and team leader for the project. To his left, Tom MacLeod from the Office of Educational Policy and Development. And to his left, John Urosek from MSHA's Technical Support Center in Pittsburgh. On my right is Cherie Hutchison. Cherie is in my office. And to her right is Matt Ward, and he's our lawyer on the project. He is also the solicitor. And to his right, Mr. Phan, who is an economist in my office.
Before we start the hearing this morning, I would like to ask you if you would join me in a moment of silence in memory of all the miners and rescuers who have lost their lives to mine accidents, including those in the more recent tragic event at Crandall Canyon. So right now, if you would join me in a moment of silence.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
CHAIR:
Thank you. This is the third of four public hearings on the proposal. As many of you know, we had a first hearing last Tuesday in Salt Lake City, the second hearing last Thursday in Lexington, Kentucky. And the last hearing will be held this Thursday, November 1, in Birmingham, Alabama. We will be holding a public hearing on mine rescue team equipment this afternoon at 2:00 p.m. I say 2:00 p.m., but it depends on what time we conclude this hearing. We may start that hearing at one o'clock.
We are holding two hearings each day so that persons interested in both rules can attend the hearing. The mine rescue team proposal applies only to underground coal mines. In the back of the room, we have copies of the Federal Register that contains the proposal.
(MSHA Exhibit One marked for
identification)
CHAIR:
The comment period for the proposal ends on November 9th. For the first time, we have noted in the Federal Register that we must receive your comments by midnight Eastern Standard Time on that date. This is the first time that we have included a time zone. And we are doing that so thereís no confusion, that folks don't receive these because of the different time zones as to exactly when the comments will be due. As of October 19th, we have received three comments on the proposal. And you can view the comments on MSHA's website, www.msha.gov.
The proposed rule implements the provision of Section Four of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response or MINER Act of 2006, which strengthens training requirements and addresses composition, availability and certification requirements for coal mine rescue teams. The purpose of this hearing is to receive information from the public that will help us evaluate the requirements in the proposal and produce a final rule that will improve overall mine rescue service, mine emergency response time, mine rescue team effectiveness and quality of mine rescue team training.
The preamble to the proposal discusses the provisions in the rule and includes a number of specific requests for information. As you address these provisions, either in your testimony to us today or in your written comments, please be as specific as possible about how these changes would affect the safety and health of miners and mine rescue team members. And this I cannot underscore as to the importance of being as specific as possible with specific information that we are able to make decisions about some of these provisions that we propose. We also request detailed information and data on costs and feasibility of implementing the provision.
At this point, I want to reiterate the specific requests of information that are in the preamble in the proposal. The first request we make is on our proposed reorganization of 30 CFR part 49 and on the approach taken. We requested comments on the designation of existing standards as subpart A for underground metal and nonmetal mines, and the creation of a new, separate subpart B containing both existing standards and the proposal to the MINER Act provisions for underground coal mines.
Also, I'm going to deviate from my prepared statement to say it is a proposal. We did not propose any changes to the existing standards. This proposal was only prepared to implement MINER Act provisions.
MSHA is proposing that any member of state-sponsored teams who are full-time state employees may substitute their regular job experience for 50 percent of the training requirements. The Agency requests comments regarding the type of state relationships with teams and team members that would qualify the team members as employees and the team as state-sponsored.
MSHA is proposing that mine rescue teams be available at the mine within one hour from the mine rescue station in accordance with the MINER Act. MSHA solicits comments on whether some existing stations may need to be moved to meet this requirement. To assist in developing our regulatory economic analysis, the Agency would like to know how many additional mine rescue stations would be needed to comply with the new requirement. Where would the new rescue station be located?
The Agency also solicits comments on whether mine operators, state agencies or other entities will encounter any difficulties in meeting the requirements. The Agency asks that commenters include specific feasibility information, such as costs or technical capability, in support of their positions.
MSHA requests comments on the proposed 64-hour annual training requirement, specifically whether the proposed hours of training should be increased or decreased in the final rule. The existing annual training requirement is 40 hours. Commenters should address the rationale for the amount of training, type of training, the number of hours of training that should be required for specific activities and the impact of such a requirement on the mining industry's ability to form additional mine rescue teams or retain current mine rescue team members.
The proposal requires mine rescue teams to train at each mine serviced by the team. Under the MINER Act, teams serving mines with 36 or fewer employees must train at each covered mine
semi-annually. Mine site teams and state-sponsored teams, which are required to train at large mines annually, would have to train at small mines
semi-annually if they service a small mine. Contract mine rescue teams would have to train quarterly at each of the large mines they service. Composite teams would have to train semi-annually at each of the large mines they service. MSHA invites comments regarding the training. MSHA also requests comments on whether this training at the covered mine needs to be conducted underground.
The Agency solicits comments regarding the type of teams that are available to mines having 36 or fewer employees, and whether these teams should be able to use other types of teams, such as composite teams, consisting of one team member from each covered mine rather than two team members from each covered mine as required by the MINER Act. Would additional mine rescue teams be needed to comply with the new requirement for teams to train at each covered mine? What would be the makeup and composition of new teams? Commenters should explain any suggested alternative, including supporting documentation and data. And as I stated at the outset, please be as specific as possible as to the impact on your particular situation.
The proposal requires underground coal mine operators to provide certified mine rescue teams and includes criteria for certifying a team. The proposal would require each mine operator to submit an annual statement to the district manager certifying the qualifications of the mine's mine rescue teams. To make this certification less burdensome, the Agency developed a form that can be filed online. MSHA welcomes any suggestions on this form and requests comments and recommendations for other alternatives for the certification of mine rescue teams.
The proposal requires mine rescue teams to participate in two local mine rescue contests each year. MSHA developed criteria for local mine rescue contests and requests comments on the proposed criteria.
The Agency solicits comments on whether there should be a minimum amount of annual training prescribed for contest judges. MSHA is considering allowing attendance at training on contest rules and interpretation to satisfy the requirement for annual training for judges. MSHA requests comments on this approach or whether some other type of training is more appropriate.
The proposal would allow other training that provides an equivalent realistic simulation exercise, such as Mine Emergency Response Development, or MERD drills, to substitute for participation in a local mine rescue contest. The agency requests comments on this alternative.
MSHA has prepared a preliminary regulatory economic analysis for the proposal, which contains estimated costs --- data on costs and benefits. MSHA estimated that the proposal would result in 28 additional mine rescue stations, 56 additional mine rescue teams and no change in the level of service provided by state-sponsored teams and stations. The Agency estimated a total annual compliance cost of $3.1 million and requests comments on all the assumptions and data used in deriving this estimate.
This hearing, as many of you who participated in an MSHA hearing know, will be conducted in an informal manner, and formal rules of evidence do not apply. The panel may ask questions of the witnesses, and the witnesses may ask questions of the panel. Cross Examination, however, is not allowed. MSHA will make a transcript of the hearing and post it on the Agency website within one or two weeks after the conclusion of this hearing.
If you wish to present a written statement or information today, please clearly identify your material and give it to one of the panel members. You may also submit comments following the public hearing by any of the methods listed in the proposal. And to be considered, MSHA must receive your comments, as I said earlier, by November 9th.
I would like to ask everyone in attendance this morning to sign the attendance sheet. And if you plan to testify, sign the list of speakers. If you have a hard copy or electronic version of your presentation, please provide it to the court reporter. And we will now hear from those of you who signed up to speak. Please begin by clearly stating your name, and just so that we have an accurate record, please be sure to spell your name for the reporter. Our first speaker is --- okay. And if anybody would like water, it's right outside the door. Our first speaker is Doug Pauley with the Pocahontas Mine Rescue Association. Mr. Pauley?
MR. PAULEY:
Thank you. Hello. You want me at the podium?
CHAIR:
Yes, sir.
MR. PAULEY:
I'm Doug Pauley from the Pocahontas ---.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. PAULEY:
I'm Doug Pauley. I'm on the Board of Directors of Pocahontas Mine Rescue Association.
CHAIR:
I'm sorry. You're not close enough.
MR. PAULEY:
All right. We've been in existence, I think, ten years. It's a foundation that deals with small mines in Elk County. And of the small mines, almost all of them are under 36. They're familiar with the mom-and-pop operations. A lot of mines and a lot of folks are familiar with the association.
One of my first questions is when we go to Bill Hess Mining, my rescue team goes to that mine, the said mines, it didn't give him enough time to be sitting there, to be training while he's taking a break.
CHAIR:
First of all, the first question I put down when you're talking about the mines is security. I gather youíre going to cover that.
MR. PAULEY:
No. That was not where I was going.
CHAIR:
Oh, I thought you said that. You were probably going to get to that?
MR. PAULEY:
Yeah.
CHAIR:
Okay. And they all were less than 36?
MR. PAULEY:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
Okay. As I started out saying, we didn't change the existing requirement, so the makeup of the existing training stays the same in terms of how we're going to get them to train four hours every month or eight hours every two months, I think.
MR. PAULEY:
Right.
CHAIR:
And they even have to wear the apparatus. That stays the same.
MR. PAULEY:
Right.
CHAIR:
The additional training, we said that you have to have mine rescue contests and then some other additional training. No. We didn't say --- the training, you have to, people with operation at the mine, and meet some relief requirements in the MINER Act. And you have to have two local mine rescue contests. But it didn't say how much time the Act covered, but it did say that you have --- now you have to have a total of 64 hours annually of training. And we gave some alternatives to the local mine rescue contests in terms of the MERD rule. So long as you come up with 64 hours of annual training, that's the requirement.
MR. PAULEY:
Okay. How much time would you say that the miners, the individual miners would have? Will that be in there?
CHAIR:
Yes. And that probably will vary depending on the mine. That could vary depending on the makeup of the mine. I mean, I may not spend any amount of time at a one-section mine and you might have a mine that operates 24/7 and, you know, it has multi sectors.
MR. PAULEY:
What areas of the mine do you want the team to be knowledgeable about? What areas of the mine do you want them to go to?
CHAIR:
I'm thinking that is the same as the MINER Act requires. But they will take at least annually and two local contests. There may be that we provide alternatives for the contest. We didn't say what area of the mine that the team can go into. They have to be knowledgeable about the operations and knowledgeable about the ventilation. And the MINER Act directs that someone, for lack of a better word, perform some training. So I think, you know, every mine rescue team training association or team may depending on the mine, the setup of the mine in terms of what it takes to know that mine if an emergency situation were to occur.
MR. PAULEY:
Your proposal overlooks the amount of time spent going through that mine and the amount of time to get out of that mine. You should consider out here more or less a contract mine and mine rescue team. And if you've spent time going through that mine, learning how to work that mine, that'll be one higher way to be safer. It takes us a long time to be available when you're not committed. It's a lot of time, a lot of rules and regulations. The amount of time can be important. These guys are all volunteer people.
CHAIR:
Well, let me say two things. And we did ask the question whether all the training needed to be conducted underground. We had asked a question about, you know, like I said earlier, whether there would actually be an alternative to the mine rescue contest. Now, in terms of how you foresee that, obviously in your mind you have some idea of how these rules and regulations will be implemented. In terms of how you think that they would be implemented in your opinion in a situation --- in your particular situation the impact in terms of additional time, if you would submit that to us in the record, you can't tell me today, but you can submit that to me in the record, I mean, before the record closes.
And secondly, if you have ideas about how it should be implemented and proof, you know, specific times and those types of things, we would submit that. I would hasten to say, though, you know, putting a specific time on something. You know, I understand. What works in one situation may not be the same time as another situation, so you have to be careful when you say that, I think.
MR. PAULEY:
Okay
CHAIR:
So your thought is it should have been like 50 percent credit for the training?
MR. PAULEY:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay. What else? You have to ---. I thank you. We are going to take many of your comments and testimony into consideration. But in some respect, we want to try and balance these concerns. And third --- after delineation, the third thing is up to you. MR. PAULEY:
Okay. It says in these rules that come the middle of next month, these rules will be implemented ---.
CHAIR:
December. The time table is December of '07.
MR. PAULEY:
Are you going to have a grace period
or ---?
CHAIR:
I can't exactly say to you how --- what
--- I can't say to you today how the final rule is going to look. But I will say that MSHA does not intend to negatively affect mine rescue teams, mine rescue team service or any conditions or considerations with respect to the long history and tradition of mine rescue teams. And in terms of predicting the makeup and the construction of the final rule, that's probably all I can say right now.
I would add that MSHA, the members on this panel --- and I want everybody to understand that. I mean, we want to do the best that we can do for mine rescue teams and emergency response, mine emergency response that's provided by the teams. And we appreciate what the teams do. You mentioned that, you know, they spend a lot of time. We know that. And we sincerely believe that there's no more noble cause than the service provided by mine rescue teams. So that's probably, in terms of being predictable about what the final ruling is going to look like, that's probably the best I can say to you right now.
MR. PAULEY:
Like I was saying before, we've been in existence about 15 years. And with the new criteria and stuff, it's made quite a few operators pretty excited to say the least. And the reason why I mentioned a grace period is I personally don't know whether our mine rescue team will be --- our teams will be around after the first of the year due to this criteria and the impact it's making on the small mines.
CHAIR:
And that's where I ask you to be specific. If you think it's going to negatively impact you, you've got to let us know before November 9th. If, you know, you have --- if you service 26 mines right now, you got to let us know whether it will allow you to continue servicing those mines or if you can only service ten mines or if you don't think you can do any of them or if you don't think you can meet the training requirements. I mean, I donít know and I donít want to put words in your mouth. But as to how it will specifically impact you, you've got to let us know.
MR. PAULEY:
Okay. I'm finished.
CHAIR:
Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Pauley.
MR. PAULEY:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Our next speaker will be Vince Cantrell, Pocahontas.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
He's not here.
CHAIR:
He's not here? Okay. Then we have James Murray, Cobra Natural Resources. Mr. Murray?
(Murray Exhibit One marked for
identification.)
MR. MURRAY:
Since Doug sat down, I think I will, too. Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, members of the audience, thank you for allowing me to air my comments and suggestions concerning the proposed regulations for 30 CFR part 49.
My name is James Matthew Murray. I'm the senior safety representative and member/trainer of the Cobra Natural Resources Mine Rescue Team. I've been involved with mine rescue since 1975. Kind of tells my age a little bit there. I started as a gas man and had most all positions in the mine rescue team, including tail captain, briefing officer and a two or three-year stand as captain of the mine rescue team. During the past 16 years I have been with the Mountaineer Mine Team now owned by Alpha Natural Resources, which was formerly Arch Coal. I'm a sixth generation coal miner and third generation mine rescue and first aid team member.
I've watched as the number of teams has reduced over the past years, and it's been my hope that something could be done to facilitate an increase in the number of competent and qualified mine rescue teams and their capabilities. The old notion that mine rescue teams were no longer needed, which many of us heard for several years, faded into obscurity with the names of Sago, Aracoma and Kentucky Darby. It was my fervent hope that the revision of part 49 would do just that. I believe that it will increase the number of teams available. However, I question whether the competency and qualification of those teams will occur, as I will discuss later.
I think this could be achieved by MSHA, the increase in teams and competency and qualification, by requiring each mine to be covered by two teams, as you have proposed, but not require two employees from each covered mine. This would increase the number of teams and hopefully be done in a way where you're not forcing miners to volunteer, and hopefully to grandfather in existing team locations even though they are located more than one hour from each covered mine.
In particular, mine rescue teams have traditionally been made up of volunteers from within the industry. We cannot draft the men of the caliber needed into service as mine rescue team members. To be on a rescue team, you have to want to do it. And we volunteers do it not for the recognition. We do it out of a sense of duty to our fellow miners. And this duty cannot be legislated or compelled. Attempting to force two individuals from each mine employing more than 36 to be on a mine rescue team, as required in 30 CFR 49.20 paragraph 2(i), will increase the number of teams, but I question whether these team members will be what the mining industry needs. Will they be the dedicated individuals who are committed to be the ones who enter a mine and attempt a rescue when all others are running out? I think this could be an issue.
I would ask the panel also to consider another type of team to be included in the regulations, and that would be strictly a company-sponsored team made up of employees of a single company, but not necessarily a single mine, nor two from each of the covered mines that the company owns, and that these teams be permitted to provide the primary coverage to the two mines. Many of this type of team exist today that are neither mine site, composite, contract or state-sponsored teams under 49.20 of the current proposal, and need to be included in the proposed regulations. If not, it is likely that most of these teams would have to break up so a company can achieve the two miners from each mine covered, something that I do not think is in the best interest of mine rescue.
Additionally, the proposal in 30 CFR 49.12 paragraph (f) calls for teams to be available within one hour of ground travel time from the rescue station. As we've seen in the past two years, travel time and response time are not the issue. The existing teams have been able to respond with great speed when notified of an emergency. The real issue is notification, which the MINER Act and subsequent regulations have addressed.
If the proposal stands, many current fully-equipped stations with well-trained and qualified teams will be forced to move from their current location and possibly lose members in the process. The Mountaineer Mine Team, which I am currently a trainer and a member of, will be required to move its mine rescue station from its current location at a three-unit coal mine employing approximately 150 men, to a location approximately 45 minutes ground travel from the mine to where it can meet the one-hour ground travel requirement to the other mines that we service for our company. In speaking with other team trainers and captains in southern West Virginia, our station and team will not be the only one with that dilemma.
I would like to ask the panel to consider a so-called grandfather clause for these existing teams and stations, which would allow the district manager to approve a travel time limit of greater than one hour, but in no case greater than the two-hour ground travel requirement in the existing regulations, and only for these existing teams.
The additional practice time required in 30 CFR 49.20 paragraph (c) may make it difficult for some current members to stay on a team. Our team, like many others, is made up of a combination of miners, both hourly and salary individuals who work together as a team. However, the training proposed at each covered mine may cause many volunteers to second guess their time commitments. If they do continue on a team, there will be many men taken away from their regular jobs, and would likely be replaced, while training, with an individual who is not as experienced with that miner's workplace or his equipment and likely to have a higher risk of injury as a result of being placed in this work area or job.
I would ask that the regulation be reconsidered or refined to require a limited number of team members, but not all team members, visit the mine or mines, covered mines, to familiarize them with their location, the maps, equipment and functions of that operation.
If we look at a mine rescue team as you would a local or municipal fire department, do we require them to train at each structure they cover? Of course not. This would limit or eliminate many volunteer departments because of the time required to train at each structure, and it just completely is not necessary. As with a structure fire, a mine fire changes everything. And places visited by the team members may not even be there, or be radically changed. This requirement would add nothing to or change the way a mine rescue team would approach a fire, and in fact, may destroy more teams than it helps create.
I do, however, want it understood that I do believe training underground is of the utmost importance. Just in this past week, my team trained underground with a theatrical smoke machine that simulates realistic conditions which they might encounter in a fire. The training session was a first for my two newest team members having been exposed to these type of things. The session only served to reinforce my belief that underground training of this type is essential and must remain, but need not be required at all of the mines a team services.
In conclusion, please consider that I have never before felt compelled to speak at a public hearing concerning a proposed regulation. But my commitment to mine rescue and continued training of qualified teams and individuals has forced me to express my concerns about some of these proposed regulations. I feel that we need to direct our efforts as an industry in cooperation with labor and government to add new qualified teams and committed individuals trained in realistic conditions, and keep established teams and stations together. Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Murray. And also, thank you for your commitment to mine rescue team service. I have a few comments, and probably some members of the panel do. First of all, how many mines do you all service?
MR. MURRAY:
That's increased recently with the purchase of our operation.
CHAIR:
Oh, okay.
MR. MURRAY:
Right now I think it's about 14.
CHAIR:
Fourteen (14)?
MR. MURRAY:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
Okay. And are they all large mines?
MR. MURRAY:
No. There are ---.
CHAIR:
Or are they a combination?
MR. MURRAY:
There's a combination.
CHAIR:
Small and large?
MR. MURRAY:
Some small and some large, yes.
CHAIR:
In your statement, you said you didn't think it needed to be two employees from each covered mine. And we ask a question on that ---
MR. MURRAY:
Yes.
CHAIR:
--- in the proposal. So any time any of you all disagree with the proposal, if you would state what --- if you have a suggestion, if you would provide the suggestion. So if you think that it should not be two employees from each covered mine, then what would be your suggestion? What do you think it should be?
MR. MURRAY:
I think one employee from each mine would be more than sufficient ---
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. MURRAY:
--- if you have an individual knowledgeable of that mine. Because like when you go to a rescue or a recovery operation, it's --- everything's going to be dictated by the conditions at that time, not by what existed in the mine before.
CHAIR:
You also mention, and we've heard this before, just so everybody knows, that if you would grandfather --- if we would grandfather existing teams, even if they're more than one hour away --- can all of your teams --- can you meet the one-hour requirement now?
MR. MURRAY:
No, ma'am.
CHAIR:
And I guess later you did say that you would have to move.
MR. MURRAY:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Can you tell me how many stations would be forced to move?
MR. MURRAY:
I donít know the exact number, ma'am. I know that we will be forced to move.
CHAIR:
Can you provide that for the record how many would be forced to move if you had to meet the one-hour requirement?
MR. MURRAY:
I can only speak for my particular company.
CHAIR:
I understand. That's all I'm ---.
MR. MURRAY:
I know that we will have two stations basically that have to move.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. MURRAY:
Our station and then another station ---.
CHAIR:
So if you move, you could meet the
one-hour requirement?
MR. MURRAY:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
Okay. When you mentioned the part about grandfathering, I would like to ask you, if at all possible, if you could provide criteria --- when you say grandfather existing stations, allow the district manager to approve. And you gave what I consider to be one criteria, which was so long as you didn't exceed the existing two-hour requirement.
MR. MURRAY:
Yes.
CHAIR:
But if there are other criteria that you can think about adding to that, because that --- I mean, that will help us. The more specific you all can be, the better it will help us make an informed decision about what to do.
MR. MURRAY:
You know, I'm basically speaking about stations that exist today ---
CHAIR:
Yes, I understand that.
MR. MURRAY:
--- and teams that exist today.
CHAIR:
Yes, sir.
MR. MURRAY:
You know, they would have to exist prior to the regulations. You know, any new teams, I think, should be --- will have to meet the one-hour requirement. We're very close, but it's about an hour and 20 minutes to the furthest mine that we serve. But I think if the team exists, that's the only criteria that I was looking at.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. MURRAY:
It exists today and falls within the two hours.
CHAIR:
Okay. If you could still, in terms of impacts, put where your stations are right now and how far they are from the mines that they service, that would be helpful to us.
MR. MURRAY:
I will.
CHAIR:
And then you made the statement that teams would have to break up. I would like to know
--- and this is for everybody, how many teams do you think would have to break up because of these proposed regulations?
MR. MURRAY:
The ones I can think of in southern West Virginia, there would probably be maybe a half a dozen that would have to rearrange their members, have members on different teams. My team right now, all of our employees come from the mine that I work at, all of our members. To meet the composite team requirement, our team would have to break up into at least two other teams to be able to meet that requirement, because we're not a contract team. We're not a composite team. We're a state team.
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. MURRAY:
And we are a mine site team, but we do service other mines within our company.
CHAIR:
Other mines. Yes. I got you. I understand. Right.
MR. MURRAY:
Okay. But specifically, I donít know how many would have to break up. But I know that we would have two teams at least that would have to break up and ---.
CHAIR:
So everything that I'm asking Mr. Murray, if people here don't want to testify today, but if they have stations that need to be moved, teams that will have to break up, if you would send that information to us before November 9th, that'll be helpful to us. Now, to the fact that you think --- you said that you didn't think that all team members had to visit the mine.
MR. MURRAY:
Yes, maíam.
CHAIR:
Just some of them. Okay. On a typical mine rescue team, then what's the minimum amount of the members that need to visit the mine that they service, in your opinion?
MR. MURRAY:
I think that, you know, you would need to at least take --- each time you go to a mine, at least two members, not the same one each time.
CHAIR:
So rotate?
MR. MURRAY:
Rotate the members.
CHAIR:
So that's the next thing I was going to ask you.
MR. MURRAY:
Yes.
CHAIR:
So in the run of a year then, do you think all of them on the team should go to the mine at least in the run of a year?
MR. MURRAY:
Yes, ma'am, I do.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. MURRAY:
You don't know who's going to be driving the truck, and they may need to know where it's at.
CHAIR:
No other reason than that; right?
MR. MURRAY:
That's right.
CHAIR:
I guess that makes sense. Okay. Well, that's all I have. Anybody else have anything?
MR. KALICH:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Thank you. Thank you.
MR. MURRAY:
You're welcome.
MR. KALICH:
You also mentioned the amount of training at each underground mine. How many times in a year do you feel the team should train at the underground mine?
MR. MURRAY:
At each mine are you saying?
MR. KALICH:
Yes.
MR. MURRAY:
I think if each member goes --- you know, is allowed the opportunity to be at a mine at least once that year, possibly no more than twice, I think that's sufficient to familiarize yourself with their ventilation and practices and things that goes on there.
MR. KALICH:
Do you think the training should also include underground at the mine, that the members would need to go underground?
MR. MURRAY:
I donít think you need to go underground at each mine. The operations that I've been involved in have all been dictated by the conditions at the time, not the way it was before. We all need to know whether it's a mine that liberates methane, how much it liberates, and these types of things. But once an explosion occurs or a fire starts, everything changes.
MR. KALICH:
That's all I have.
CHAIR:
Anybody? Okay, Mr. Murray. Thank you very --- now, this is putting a little bit of a burden and a duty on you all, the ones who are coming forward, and maybe the ones in the audience who may not be coming forward but may be listening. And that duty is where we are asking these questions, if you have information on them, I'm asking you, please, to get that to us before the record closes. I can't overemphasize the importance of doing that, because that's the only way. Listening to general conclusionary statements and making statements like that will not provide the information that we need to make any changes in the proposal. It's only with the specific information that we will be able to use that and define impacts and maybe come up with some change. So I can't --- I'm asking you all to please provide the specific information to us before the record closes if it impacts your existing mine rescue team situation. Thank you.
MR. MURRAY:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
My colleague was just informing me that as you present your impact data in terms of whether it means teams move, teams breaking up, teams going out of business, stations moving, to make sure you add cost data to it also. Thank you. Next we have Ken Perdue, Alpha Natural Resources.
MR. PERDUE:
I donít know if you want ---.
CHAIR:
Yes, I'll take them. Thank you.
(Perdue Exhibit marked for
identification)
MR. PERDUE:
My name is Kenneth M. Perdue. That's
P-E-R-D-U-E. I would like to thank the members of the panel today for the opportunity to offer comments and suggestions concerning the proposed regulations of 30 CFR part 49.
I volunteered to be on a mine rescue team for the company I worked for in 1974. In 1975, I became the captain of that team and remained a team member through 1995. Since 1995, I've remained active in mine rescue and recently established two teams at the present company I work for now. I understand fully the time and dedication required to be one --- to be a member of this elite organization within the mining community.
In the 18th century, Samuel Johnson, a well-known philosopher, stated that most people need to be reminded more than instructed. I would remind this panel that during my entire career in the mining industry, which began in 1974, I've never known of an event where the existing mine rescue team structure in our industry has failed. And I'm concerned that these new regulations and rules would weaken our current mine rescue capabilities.
Proposed Section 49.40 requires that a mine employing over 36 employees has to provide primary mine rescue coverage by either providing a mine site team or a composite team. I think there's a possibility that this requirement could weaken mine rescue capabilities. For example, many states have highly-trained and qualified teams that now will not be able to provide primary mine rescue services to these mines, even though they have invested thousands of dollars in equipment, personnel and training. Likewise, Virginia has a program where companies provide coverage to other mines through a contract with Virginia's Department of Mines and Minerals.
And these regulations without a grandfathering provision will result in making it impossible for these companies to continue to participate in this program. Therefore, MSHA should consider grandfathering these teams so they can provide primary coverage to mines as they have done for years.
Section 49.12(2)(b) states that a team is made up of five members and an alternate. I assume MSHA has inadvertently left out the words, at least five members and an alternate, similar to what it's included in table 49.50 number one. In particular, if a composite team is to serve the needs of over three mines and have two members from each mine, then this composite team would have to have more than six members to comply with the composite team requirements.
When dealing with a composite team, some questions that need to be addressed are, if a team of more than six people compete in a contest, would all the alternates be counted as participating in the contest? And if a team member is not permitted to compete if he goes to the contest, will he be considered to have met the contest standard?
Section 49.15., mine rescue stations, I think the established mine rescue stations, even though they may be more than one hour travel to a mine, should be grandfathered, as Mr. Murray stated, and should be able to continue to provide coverage to the mines to which that station has previously provided coverage. If this grandfathering does not occur, we will have to relocate an established station to meet the one-hour travel limit.
In particular, our company's West Virginia operations, we have a station at a
multi-section mine in a secure location. If this station has to be relocated to satisfy the one-hour travel limitations to the other mines, it will have to be moved to a rental property where security will definitely be an issue, and existing team members will have to travel a longer distance to get to the station. This move is likely to result in experienced mine rescue team members resigning from the team. Of the mines being covered, clearly the multi-section mine has the most potential to need mine rescue services. To move a station to merely gain compliance is not in the best interest of anyone.
Concerning the training requirements of state-sponsored teams, it would be my belief that those inspector personnel who inspect the mines that they are providing coverage for should be credited to 50 percent of their training. Additionally, I think mines that have composite teams or mine site teams with persons should also be credited for 50 percent of their training, as these individuals work at these mines daily and these members are intimately familiar with all aspects of the mine and participate in quarterly evacuation drills.
Also, there are many mine rescue associations that are currently providing primary coverage to mines with greater than 36 employees. This too is now not possible because of the proposed standard subsequent to the MINER Act needs to be considered.
On a related training issue, in the preamble on page 51325 paragraph E, it is stated that MSHA interprets the MINER Act to mean at least one of the training sessions must be conducted at the underground covered mine. I want to be clear. I support underground training by mine rescue teams. And the existing proposed Section 49.18(b)(1) requires that training must be held underground at least each six months, which our teams do and will continue to do. However, to have a team train underground at each covered mine is not necessary or practical. MSHA should consider training at a covered mine, not each covered mine.
Team members who volunteer to be on a mine rescue team also perform their duties on their regular job at their respective mines. These additional practices may cause additional trained and qualified mine rescue personnel to quit due to the excessive amount of practice time. For example, if a composite team covering five mines and another composite team covering four mines were the two teams of record, this would mean that these teams would have to train underground 36 times a year if this proposal is implemented. I seriously question the need to have that many training activities underground.
The proposed regulations also failed to account for the inability of many mines to have transportation available for underground mine rescue training due to the mine being in production status or on Saturdays or idle day pre-shift examinations for the mine, the days that the team may be available for practice and even required SCSR availability for mine rescue personnel when they're practicing.
The MINER Act has some specific terms in it along with this regulation that also differs vastly from the previous part 49 requirements. Under Section 49.20(b)(2)(i), it states, only a member who is from each covered mine can make up a composite team. There are many mine rescue teams that have been together for years and provided services for multiple mines but are not members from the mine. This definition effectively eliminates these types of teams, and therefore will eliminate many qualified mine rescue persons. These men will be replaced, if volunteers come forward, with inexperienced persons that will take several years to attain the skill level of those that they are replacing. I urge the panel to grandfather these members even though they are not from each covered mine.
MSHA should also consider a provision similar to the one outlined for anthracite teams, as discussed on page 51231, number three, Section 49.2(b), to allow these teams to continue to function as they are now and continue to provide coverage to the mines within the respective one-hour travel time, even though they are not from each covered mine. It clearly is the right thing to do.
Section 49.20(b)(3) seems to envision a contract team as one that provides coverage for profit. The MINER Act uses the term commercial instead of the proposed definition of a contract team. A commercial team should be a team formed to provide coverage for profit. However, in reality, a contract team, as defined by the regulations, may be another team at our company or a team from another company that provides mine rescue coverage but does not have employees from the covered mine, but the team does not do this for profit. These teams are providing secondary coverage to mines where their team members do not work. These teams should have the same training requirements as a composite team, not the requirements that a team that provides mine rescue coverage for profit --- a true commercial team, not a contract team.
Also in this same section, 49.20, there needs to be some clarification concerning whether or not a member who provides or does work at multiple mines, such as myself, can be considered as an employee for mine rescue purposes at each mine where they perform this work. This is critical in that we all work to try to advance ourselves through any organization. To prevent a member from being on a mine site or composite team for this reason would be in the wrong interest to the member and it would be a detriment to mine rescue teams everywhere.
The economic feasibilities studies published on page 51328 is woefully inadequate. In my company alone, we have five mines that we are currently covered from a central two-hour station. We will have to move this station and create another one as well and train additional mine rescue personnel if volunteers step forward. Our economic impact for the fiscal year 2008 could be as high as $530,000 by the time we purchase equipment, train new team members and acquire temporary personnel to fill in during absences.
Our mines only represent less than three percent of the underground mines in West Virginia. Therefore, I believe the financial impact will be substantially greater than the $3 million annual projections on which MSHA has made assumptions. We alone will have to expend one sixth of this projected spending in 2008 for our five mines in West Virginia.
Based on the following mine scenarios and sizes in Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia, I think this economic assumption is drastically wrong. Kentucky has 155 mines, 75 are more than 36. Virginia has 49 mines. Twelve (12) are more than 36. West Virginia has 171 mines, 90 of which are over 36. So you see why I make these assumptions.
Section 49.60 deals with the new requirement of mandatory contests. In 2006, prior to the passage of the MINER Act, our company started two mine rescue teams. During the past summer, we attended five contests. Due to the amount of time spent practicing and being away from their homes, we now only have seven active team members, as the others have quit due to the fact that too much time is involved.
It is my belief contests should never be mandatory, even though the MINER Act mandates it. And teams that want to practice MERD drills or use real or simulated mines for smoke training or advanced firefighting training should be allowed to do so in lieu of attending a contest. Also, I believe that breaching of seals and doing exploration work in mines being prepared to be reopened while MSHA or state mine rescue personnel are present should be acceptable in lieu of contests as well. That's actual mine rescue work.
It has been my recent experience that current contests consist of ventilation simulations that are very unlikely to be encountered in an actual mine disaster. Gas tests are simulated, as well as everything else. We found the most beneficial contest attended this year to be a contest held by the recently formed West Virginia Mine Rescue Alliance that actually tests teams in firefighting techniques, smoke searches, equipment searches, first aid, written skills, problem solving on the field and actual gas testing. I would urge contests in the future to look at this as a model from which to build and learn if they become mandatory.
MSHA has also requested information on what training contest judges should have. In order to be a judge, they should be required to have at least the same training a mine rescue personnel is required to have to become certified by either MSHA or the state. Sitting in on a reading of the rules can't qualify anyone to be a judge. And the teams that are judged by these individuals and discounted errantly are punished due to the lack of knowledge of a judge. This is clearly wrong.
My last comment concerns the proposed emergency evacuations under 75.1501. It is my belief that these proposed training requirements go well beyond what a responsible person at the mine should be required to do, including duties MSHA will not allow. The responsible person should not be expected to organize a command center. That will be done by someone else. He should be not allowed to direct mine rescue personnel. Notify them, yes. Direct them, no. They should not be establishing the first aid --- or fresh air base. That's the responsibility of mine rescue teams. They should not deploy the mine rescue teams. Many teams would not be deployed or would refuse to be deployed by the person that was responsible.
In conclusion, it is my sincere belief that these regulations will not advance mine rescue and that these regulations as proposed or implemented, it will take years and millions of dollars for us to overcome these mine rescue changes. To change a mine rescue system that is not broken or in disrepair and was functioning properly and responsibly because of mistakes of others is not the right thing to do.
There is a philosophy term known as Occam's Razor. This means when seeking a solution to a problem with multiple answers, the simplest of solutions provided should be accepted. It is clear to me that if someone had to change the existing part 49 rescue requirements, that changing the two hour to one hour travel while grandfathering in existing stations and leaving everything else the way it was provides not only the simplest solution, but would continue to encourage new personnel to be introduced into mine rescue.
Many people my age are leaving this industry. The negative impact that the many hundreds of additional practices will now have to occur will have many young miners not volunteering their services as a result of too much personal time being involved. This is a reality. And before the older generation leaves and the proposed regulation becomes a reality, MSHA and the Congress should take these comments to heart.
CHAIR:
Thank you. I see Mr. Perdue has a second job, that he's a philosopher in addition to being a mine rescue team member. But thank you for your mine --- seriously, thank you for your mine rescue team service. And we will take your comments to heart. I'd like to say again that --- and you know, I'm going to continue to say it, that we do not intend to negatively impact mine rescue teams, existing teams, mine rescue team service.
I have a few additional questions about some of the things you mentioned. On some of them I think you were specific. You said that if we didn't do any grandfathering, in your particular situation, you all would have to move one station, relocate one station.
MR. PERDUE:
And create a station.
CHAIR:
You would have to create?
MR. PERDUE:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
Okay. Now, so what, you would have to create one additional station?
MR. PERDUE:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
Okay. I'm not going to go in order with some of the questions. I'm going to move ---.
MR. PERDUE:
And two additional teams.
CHAIR:
And two additional teams.
MR. PERDUE:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
Now, I'm going to move now to --- closer to the end, because you gave a cost impact of that of, I believe $530,000.
MR. PERDUE:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
Now, was that a one-time cost or was that an annual cost?
MR. PERDUE:
That will be one-time cost for the calendar fiscal year of 2008 to establish a new station and two new teams, training and replacement personnel.
CHAIR:
Okay. I also, while I'm thinking about it --- we heard comments on the responsible person, the duties of the responsible person.
MR. PERDUE:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
And we said --- you said, and we heard that in Salt Lake City also, that the responsible person cannot be expected to do all those things. And I won't, you know, delineate all those numbers of things that the proposal requires. But I will say that if you read the lead-in to that, and maybe we weren't as artful as we should have been, the lead-in, I had it right here in front of me. The lead-in says that the responsible person should have knowledge in those things. I donít think it said that the responsible person should direct those things. If I remember, it said a responsible person --- the responsible person shall have current knowledge of a lot of these things. And so we'll take --- we'll go back and look at exactly how we worded that.
You also gave what you thought, your belief that the move would likely result in experienced mine rescue team members resigning from the team. Now, if you have any specific, concrete knowledge, and this goes for anybody in here, about members that --- and it's probably kind of difficult for you to know exactly to a certainty, but if you have any knowledge that members will resign from the team, are likely to resign from a team, why they are likely to resign, if you would tell us that. Why do you think members are likely to resign from the team?
MR. PERDUE:
An additional hour and a half of travel time each way to practice on their part.
CHAIR:
You mean when you move the station?
MR. PERDUE:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
Okay. Or create, as you put, create another station.
MR. PERDUE:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay. You mentioned the impact on state teams. Well, actually, you mentioned that you thought composite teams, members of composite and mine site teams ought to get the credit of --- the same credit as state teams, the 50-percent credit ---
MR. PERDUE:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
--- as state teams.
MR. PERDUE:
Yes, ma'am. That is correct.
CHAIR:
That's really what you said. You also said that there were a number of mine rescue associations that probably --- that currently provide primary coverage to mines greater than 36 employees. But with these proposed regulations, they would not be able to. And why exactly do you say that?
MR. PERDUE:
It's my belief that what's stated in the proposed regulation, if you have more than 36 employees, that you only have --- you have to have a mine site team or composite team. I could be errant in that assumption. But that's my reading and understanding of the proposed regulations, that if you have more than 36 employees, one of your teams has to be either a mine site team or a composite team. And if you had a contract team, it could be technically a composite team if two employees of that mine.
But the associations use miners usually from smaller mines to be team members of their teams. So they would be barred, essentially, from providing that coverage to a larger mine. It's going to be a severe economic impact on those associations if they can't provide coverage for a mine over 36.
CHAIR:
Okay. And you know, not to put anybody on the spot, but in terms of the specific number of mine rescue associations that you all think would be negatively affected, if you could provide us that, we would appreciate it.
MR. PERDUE:
I know for sure two would be negatively impacted.
CHAIR:
Two associations?
MR. PERDUE:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay. Okay. Can you be specific?
MR. PERDUE:
Do you need the names? Pocahontas Mine Rescue Association and Mountaineer Mine Safety.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. PERDUE:
And I think there's representatives of both of those organizations here today.
CHAIR:
Okay. Okay. And I think you were clear enough, as well as the prior speaker, about training at covered mines, that you just donít suggest training at each covered mine. But you do --- you did support training at covered mines. You do not think that each team member needs to train at each covered mine?
MR. PERDUE:
Nor do I need --- nor do I believe that each underground mine has to have underground training at it.
CHAIR:
Right.
MR. PERDUE:
You know. Mine rescue teams are never going to have enough time to do anything other than visit mines if you cover multiple mines.
CHAIR:
I think you really --- I think the next question I have, you answered that. Now, in terms of your own personal situation, you mentioned that there needs to be some clarification about whether or not a member who provides and does work at multiple mines, such as you, would be considered as an employee for mine rescue. You work at multiple mines?
MR. PERDUE:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
And so ---.
MR. PERDUE:
But I'm not employed at a mine. I'm not a member from a covered mine. But it's my belief, because of my knowledge and background of each mine, that I can still provide the same service at the level of mine rescue at each mine, regardless of whether or not I'm employed at that mine.
CHAIR:
Okay. So you know --- and not to get into your --- not to --- I guess so that I fully understand this, when you --- so how many mines do you work at?
MR. PERDUE:
I have five underground mines that I'm directly responsible for.
CHAIR:
Okay. In terms of --- okay. Okay. When you started giving the state breakouts, and I do appreciate that, would you clarify what you said about West Virginia?
MR. PERDUE:
West Virginia has 171 mines, 90 ---.
CHAIR:
Yes. Oh, in your printed --- I thought I heard something different than what was in your printed statement.
MR. PERDUE:
Ninety (90) have greater than 36. And as I understand the proposed regulation, the mines that are greater than 36, the --- I did not add the total of West Virginia mines up, so ---.
CHAIR:
I got you. Yes. Okay.
MR. PERDUE:
But there's 177 coal mines in Kentucky and West Virginia and Virginia that have greater than 36 employees that will have the most economic impact, according to these regulations. Those are the mines that are going to be most greatly impacted. The less than 36 mines have an option of either mine site, composite, state or commercial team. Greater than 36 don't have that option. They have to have one team that's either composite or mine site. So those are the teams that have the most financial impact or most financial burden to bear.
CHAIR:
Mr. Perdue gave some alternatives. We ask for alternatives to contests in the proposal. And you provided some alternatives. So for the persons in the audience, we are very interested in any alternatives to local contests. If you have any additional --- you all heard what he said. If you have any additional alternatives, we would appreciate whatever you have to offer. I think those are all the comments and questions I have. My colleagues might have some.
MR. PERDUE:
Thank you.
MR. PHAN:
Excuse me. One of the --- when I was doing the economic assessment, one of the questions that I was trying to gather data on this --- the number of state teams in West Virginia. Do you have any knowledge of how many teams are covered --- I mean, how many mines are covered by state teams?
MR. PERDUE:
It would be my belief, unless I'm wrong, but the State of West Virginia doesn't cover any mines for mine rescue coverage. They have some teams, but I do not think they provide either primary or secondary coverage to any mine in West Virginia.
MR. PHAN:
And one more question. When you were mentioning the $530,000 for a one-time cost, can you break down the various components, whether they're equipment or personnel, and how long these equipment will last? For example, if you have to purchase a --- can't come up with one example off the top of my head, but let's say that you have to purchase equipment for mine breathing apparatus, and how long do you expect that to last?
MR. PERDUE:
I can't give you an estimate on how long a BG-4 or a Biomarine apparatus would last. It would probably depend on the next generation, when they quit making parts for it. I think at the end of this year, the BG-174A becomes extinct because of lack of parts. I would say a minimum of ten years. The equipment purchased would last that long, a minimum of ten years with replacement parts and attrition throughout that would, you know, have to augment that additional cost. But of that $530,000, about $300,000 of it is in equipment and $200,000 is in employees and training and a facility to house and station that equipment and transportation for that equipment for multiple mines.
CHAIR:
Okay. Thank you. If anybody in here has to relocate a station or open a new station, if there are any costs attendant to facility costs, and you mentioned rental in yours, if you would include, if there are specific costs related to the facility, to either purchase, rent, whatever, if you would include that in your comments. I know we're asking you a lot, but if you would provide some of those, we would appreciate it. Thank you.
MR. PERDUE:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
You know, I know --- I'm sure my colleagues here want to take a break, but let's see who --- what's next. What do we have? Two more people. I guess they want out. So can we take a five-minute break, please? Five minutes?
SHORT BREAK TAKEN
CHAIR:
We will now continue with the Mine Safety and Health Administration's public hearing on the proposed mine rescue team regulations. Next on our witness list, we have Dennis O'Dell. And Mr. O'Dell is administrator for safety and health with the United Mine Workers of America.
MR. O'DELL:
Good morning.
CHAIR:
Good morning.
MR. O'DELL:
First, I'd like to thank you for being given this opportunity to speak before this panel about an important issue for many of our miners in the country today. Again, my name is Dennis O'Dell,
D-E-N-N-I-S, O, apostrophe, capital D-E-L-L. I am currently the United Mine Workers of America administrator of occupational health and safety. I've been in the mining industry for close to 30 years, nearly 20 as an underground coal miner, the remaining being employed at United Mine Workers of America in their safety department.
During my time with the United Mine Workers of America safety department, I've been involved in more mine investigations involving fire, explosions and fatals than I would like to think about. Sadly, I have to say, as I look at some of the members on your panel today, I've spent more time with them in the past ten years at a number of coal mine investigations than I have with my own wife.
United Mine Workers of America is pleased to have the opportunity to offer comments on the Mine Safety and Health Administration's mine rescue team and equipment proposed rule. Today I plan to offer some general comments, but I also intend to place written comments on the record in a manner that corresponds to the agency's writing of the proposed rules. Hopefully no one on this panel or in this room is thin-skinned, because some of the things I say today may offend, but that's not my intent.
United Mine Workers is very concerned that the agency has either misunderstood the directive of Congress regarding mine rescue teams, or decided to ignore its mandate. It is apparent in the first paragraph of the preamble that the regulators at MSHA do not understand the directive of Congress where it says, the goal of the MINER Act is to improve the safety of mines and mining. However, what the agency has determined to be the core of their legislative mandate with regard to the mine rescue team we find to be deficient.
The Union would agree with MSHA that to accomplish this goal, the MINER Act includes provisions to improve mine emergency response time, improve mine rescue team effectiveness and increase the quantity and quality of mine rescue team training. While these stated facts represent a part of the overall directive of Congress, they by no means cover the scope of the mandate.
In fact, the proposed rule does not accomplish some of the critical aspects laid out in the legislation to enhance the current mine rescue team system. In particular, the proposal does not effectively encourage employers to create new mine site rescue teams, nor does it implement a system by which the agency can objectively evaluate certified mine rescue teams. These two issues were the cornerstone for this section of the MINER Act.
The agency has avoided writing a more comprehensive regulation, as was the intent of all parties involved, by citing a lack of legislative history. There is no doubt that the MINER Act does not have the extensive history as the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. However, there are credible resources that MSHA could have and should have utilized in order to create the proposed rule.
In order to accomplish what Congress broadly defined regarding mine rescue teams, United Mine Workers of America suggests the agency table the current proposal and immediately meet with the parties who are engaged in drafting the legislation. This would afford the agency the insight it needs to properly address the matter and ensure the intent of the legislation is met. The Union does not believe the proposed rule should move forward as it is written.
The intent of the legislation was to increase the number of qualified mine rescue teams that would be readily available to mine operators in the event that they are needed. The strict meaning of the congressional mandate is to require that a mine operator must have two such teams available at all times when miners are underground.
Based on these requirements, it becomes apparent that different operators will employ different strategic plans to comply. The MINER Act specifically cites these options, including mine site, composite, contract and state-sponsored teams. Mine operators may use whatever method they deem most appropriate for their operation. The mine's specific plan could incorporate a combination of any of the approved means with some necessary restrictions. All rescue teams must meet the minimum criteria to be used in a rescue or recovery operation, including the training requirements, MSHA certification, preparation and rescue contests and others. In the case of first responders, they must be readily available at all times when miners are underground, located within one hour travel time from a mine rescue station and they must have practiced at the facility they are assigned to service a required number of times.
Given the possible manpower needs in a given situation, the mine operator could utilize a variety of different teams. The Union would suggest that based on the magnitude of the event, the operator can employ every type of team permitted by the rule. However, as I previously stated, teams that do not meet the onsite training requirement cannot be used as first responders.
The Union does not believe that job duties, no matter what the specific duties entail, should permit any mine rescue team member to avoid onsite or specific mine rescue team training. Most team members are highly skilled and motivated individuals with a greater than normal understanding of mining practices, techniques and plans. However, the fact that mining operations --- that each mining operation is different, a fact that mine operators continually commented on, should be recognized in this situation. But the duties of a single team member, even if a member is an inspector, although helpful, cannot adequately prepare the entire team for a rescue or recovery mission. If the rescue team is seeking first responder status at any operation training in mine conditions at each operation they are assigned to service, as is outlined in the MINER Act, this must be done. This will ensure the team is familiar with the conditions at each mine and are able to perform their duties at the highest level.
The purpose of the MINER Act was to ensure miners that past events where underexperienced, undertrained and unqualified mine rescue teams were under contract to service operations does never occur again. Recent events we've seen have demonstrated that simply having a team arrive on the mine property does not facilitate rescue and recoverable operation. This fact is extremely evident among contract mine rescue teams. The regulation must eliminate this possibility.
Every mine, whether large or small, should have employees at the mine --- have mine rescue trained that is familiar with the mine. Ask any mine rescue team member that responds, and his confidence level goes way up when they are traveling with someone that knows the mine on a firsthand basis. We heard mine rescue team members come to D.C. and testify on the same statement.
State and federal teams can still play a vital role. They can travel with teams from operations they are responding to, much as they do today. This will enhance the teams with personnel that can help during decision-making time based on their expertise and experience of being an inspector as well as from past experience they have been involved in in mine rescue events.
Everyone in this industry that I've been associated with has told me that the key to a safe, efficient operation is training, training, training. Many mine rescue team members have told me that the most valuable training they've received in the past few years was when they were taken to Lake Lynn in an exercise in smoke under full apparatus. That should tell all of us something. The best insurance policy a mine can have is a well-trained workforce. This includes having their own trained mine rescue team onsite. A mine with 36 employees or 500 employees, each and every one of their lives are precious and they deserve the same level of protection. It is a small investment with a large payoff if the time comes that you need to call on these mine rescue team members. This ability to respond immediately may mean the difference of saving a life or property or not.
I can't imagine the cost of maintaining a mine rescue team would put a financial burden on any mine in operation today. And if it is, then maybe they shouldn't be in the business. We have to change our attitude where safety comes before production, where protecting our employees comes before protecting our profit margins. If we are truly honest, everyone in this room who has been around the industry for any length of time knows how we got to where we are today. We all saw this coming. We have all talked about it, yet we have failed to take this issue head on and stop this inevitable train wreck.
When I started in the '70s, coal was king. Mine rescue teams were abundant. They were alive and healthy. In the '80s, the coal demand dropped and the agency, through policy changes, relaxed the mine rescue rules. And operators stopped investing into employing their own teams. And so here we sit today with a problem for us.
The teams we have today are the most experienced rescue teams in the world bar none, but they are slim. God forbid if a major disaster were to occur right this minute. I'm afraid we would find ourselves shorthanded on the number of experienced teams needed to respond. We are overworking our teams that we have. How many times during the past tragic events that we've been involved in have we heard our team members say that they are exhausted, they need help? It's time that we do the right thing. It's time that we protect our miners the way Congress intended. We need to protect our most valuable resource, not only the miner, but the rescuer. United Mine Workers will offer written comments in more detail before the close of the comment period. And I will be happy to try to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. O'Dell. As I have done with everybody this morning, I want to underscore with you the significance to getting specific comments on some of the issues that we raised in the opening statement as well as some of the issues that you may have heard this morning with some of the other members in terms of what your reaction would be to some of --- what some of the commenters, earlier commenters have said this morning. And as I said to them, I'm going to say to you. We would appreciate very much the specifics, because the specifics do help us to make a reasoned decision about going one way as opposed to another.
I do have a few comments that I want to make in terms of some of the things you said. In terms of --- two things that you said. You talked about our purpose, and you thought the proposal didnít accomplish that purpose of improving mine rescue service. And there I'm going to be a little redundant, but --- and you did say that --- you were providing general, some general comments of the proposal did not allow MSHA to --- does not encourage mine rescue teams and does not allow MSHA to evaluate certified teams. If you would be --- and you wanted us to write more comprehensive regulations, like I said, if you would, to be a little bit more specific in terms of what your suggestions would be and what area should we be more comprehensive. Why doesn't the proposal allow MSHA to evaluate certified teams?
In terms of --- you mentioned a couple of specific things that I'd like to ask you about. You said the teams must practice at the facility that they serve, and later, all members must have training at the covered mine. You've heard some of the prior members, some of the prior association members, some of the prior company members say that not all team members had to practice each time at the covered mine. So I want to understand, is it your statement that all team members must train at the covered mine?
MR. O'DELL:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
For each of the training periods ---
MR. O'DELL:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
--- that are --- okay. And when you say to us that you think --- because I mean, you all have been here. You all have heard this with me this morning, how some people say that as long --- that they don't need to train at the covered mine for each of the training segments required, just that maybe they could train annually at the mine. So you were saying, Mr. O'Dell, that they need to train at the covered mine for each training segment required?
MR. O'DELL:
If I may?
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. O'DELL:
One of the things that I was taught as a miner is that I should always be familiar with my workplace. And I've had that driven in my head from my red hat days and I still believe that to be true today. If I'm going to be efficient and I'm going to be able to perform my job duties, no matter what they are, I need to be familiar with my surroundings. So if I'm a mine rescue team member and I'm going to cover X number of mines, I think it's important that I have some familiarity with those areas of the mines that I'll be covering. It just only makes good sense.
CHAIR:
Okay. And I guess the point I want --- because I want to make sure that I understand, I mean, that I get it straight. I guess what I was asking you is, for an example, if they have to train four times a year under the proposed rule, you think that they have to train at the covered mine for all that four times, or do you think some rotation is acceptable?
MR. O'DELL:
That's something that we'll comment on in our written comments.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. O'DELL:
We're still trying to figure that out. And to be honest with you, I can understand the operators having some problems with that ---
CHAIR:
That was the next thing.
MR. O'DELL:
--- based on the need that this --- thatí it's going to take place. It may be possible that a rotation be acceptable. Then again, it may not. But we'll address that in our written comments.
CHAIR:
Okay. The only other thing I have --- well, I have two things right now. You said state teams can play a vital role. They can travel with the teams that know the mine. So what, are you saying there that state teams cannot be a primary team? I didn't understand --- quite understand that statement.
MR. O'DELL:
We've had several representatives from the State of Kentucky, from the State of Virginia, and I've even talked to some folks from MSHA, State of West Virginia, who have mine rescue teams, state sponsored. MSHA is in the same position with their mine rescue team.
CHAIR:
Right.
MR. O'DELL:
Under the proposal, what function can they play? And about every operation that I've been involved in when it comes to a mine rescue event is that teams will break up and they'll have somebody from the state and somebody from MSHA travel with that team. And I donít know why we wouldn't be able to do that today. I just met with a representative from Kentucky last week, and he told me that if there wasn't some special circumstances placed in the rule to allow the state teams to cover small mines, they thought that the team was going to have to disband.
CHAIR:
Uh-huh (yes). I heard. I heard.
MR. O'DELL:
And my comment to him was that it sounds to me like it's just a budgetary issue, because that state team --- that state mine rescue team can still function. They just can't be the primary team that responds to that operation. In other words, if we do our job and we do our job right, every operation in this country will have mine rescue team personnel employed at that mine. And we should want that. The operator should want that. That's the best insurance policy anybody can ever offer their miners, is to have trained mine rescue team personnel at their site. I donít care if it's 36 employees or 3,600 employees.
CHAIR:
One of the things we've heard so far, and we've put all the transcripts up so everybody can hear, is that the mines are having difficulty getting members to volunteer for mine rescue service. What's your --- and particularly, small mines, now that you mention numbers. So what's your reaction to that?
MR. O'DELL:
We have some small mines that we represent, but for the bigger part, we represent larger mines.
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. O'DELL:
I can tell you that our larger mines, we have people standing in line that want to be involved in mine rescue. But because there's no vacancies yet on these teams, they haven't been able --- now they're starting to have more teams to make it available for these guys to want to participate.
CHAIR:
Yes. Well, we've heard --- just so everybody --- and I want to hear everybody's reaction to this. We heard --- and particularly at small mines --- and like you said, you generally represent big mines. We heard that there are problems getting --- real problems, tangible problems, people gave us an example, of getting people to volunteer for mine rescue service. And they thought this proposal would even exacerbate that situation, make it a little more difficult.
MR. O'DELL:
Ms. Silvey, if I may, I will have to tell you today that anybody that serves on a mine rescue team is probably one of the most respectable miners we have in this country today.
CHAIR:
Yes, I agree.
MR. O'DELL:
Because they put their life behind somebody else's. They'll put somebody else's life ahead of theirs. But I can't believe that, knowing coal miners as I've been around coal miners for 30 years, that we'd have trouble fulfilling --- having somebody serve on a mine rescue team, whether it be a company personnel or whether it be an hourly personnel. It seems like the coal mining community always comes together when it comes to events like this, that they want to help out. Look what happened in Utah, prime example of people willing to put their lives at risk to help other people. I just can't imagine the problem is as large as what we say it is.
CHAIR:
And make no mistake, it was not that we heard that mine rescue teams wouldn't respond. I mean, we heard universally, and I think that's clear, like you just said, Mr. O'Dell, that if you look at the history of American coal mining, or mining period, not just coal mining, that mine rescue teams will respond, respond quickly and respond willingly. So I donít think that anybody has any second thoughts about that. I think all I was saying is we heard that they --- people were having difficulty getting members to serve on the teams.
MR. O'DELL:
Ms. Silvey, if I may? I honestly believe that everybody that's in this room today is here because they care. They care about coal miners or they wouldn't be here. Most of the people that sit behind me, I personally know. They're dedicated people. We may differ on our viewpoints about how things should go. But I think that everybody here today, including your panel, is dedicated to helping miners. And I think we have to be very careful as we move forward and we have to keep in mind that we have to go beyond and think outside of the box and keep --- first and foremost, we have to understand --- and I hate to say, John, you and I have been involved in mine rescue meets, and you know how these mine rescue guys bleed for each other, but we're not sufficient in that area today. We need to fix the broken wheel. And I think as we move forward, we can do that. But I think it's important, whether it's a small mine or a large mine, I think we can come together as an industry and protect these guys and have mine rescue teams available at each mine site and be training them.
CHAIR:
And I'm going to take you up --- when you said we need to fix the broken wheel, then just one final time, when you send your comments in by the 9th, be specific as to how we fix the broken wheel. I mean, be specific in suggestions that you might have.
MR. O'DELL:
Yes, ma'am.
CHAIR:
We'll appreciate that.
MR. O'DELL:
What we've actually done is we've taken each section and responded ---.
CHAIR:
Okay. Good. That's fine. And I only have one more thing. You mentioned the Lake Lynn training, and a lot of us think that that's good training. But do you think that that training would provide an alternative to training at the covered mine?
MR. O'DELL:
No, I donít. I think it's a good training as an extra training. Let me tell you, I've talked with some mine rescue teams members who --- we have teams that are competitive teams today and teams that are noncompetitive. It's starting to change a little bit. But some of the teams that I was familiar with who were noncompetitive teams who didn't participate in mine rescue team events, they filled the mandate of mine rescue teams by carrying concrete blocks in the outside yard from here to that wall under apparatus. And did they get anything out of that? I mean, they got to feel what a mine rescue unit felt like, but did they really get to know what it's like under a mine rescue event where they would have to respond to a tragic --- no, they said they didn't.
What they did say was that when they went to Lake Lynn and they were under apparatus and they were given a problem and they were put under smoke, they said that was valuable to them. Is that as good as being able to do it at the mine that they represent? No. But it's a step in the right direction. It's something that I think is an improvement on what we do today.
MS. HUTCHISON:
You spoke about --- there's a number of people available to start new teams. And we heard earlier that the existing teams don't want to break up. Well, I was just wondering how you go about making effective new teams without using mine rescue team members that are currently active on existing teams. Where would that --- where would be the value in a new mine rescue team just starting up with six people with no mine rescue experience?
MR. O'DELL:
Well, it would be the same as what occurred when I started in the mines in the '70s. There were new teams that were formed with people who were inexperienced, new members on a mine rescue team. There's a growing period that's going to have to take place. There's no question. They won't have the experience that our mine rescue teams have today, but we have to start somewhere. It's just like MSHA's hiring new inspectors. We have new inspectors who are in the mines today who have absolutely no mining background, but we've sent them to the Mine Academy to be trained to try to prepare them to be good inspectors. We have to take the same attitude and approach with new mine rescue team members.
And it's possible if a large mine that employs two or three mine rescue teams, that new team can train with those other teams and gain the knowledge and know-how just by shadowing and practicing with them. We keep our fingers crossed and we say a prayer at night and hope that nothing happens between now and the time we get these guys the experience they need. And that's the best we can do today.
CHAIR:
Well, I would have a different type of question, and that is, since we heard about the difficulty in getting new teams, I want everybody to talk about --- think outside of the box. I want everybody's ideas on if we have to form these teams, where are they coming from? That's really my --- that's my big question. Are there the members out there to form these new teams?
MR. O'DELL:
Employees at the operations, absolutely.
CHAIR:
Okay. All right. I just want to make sure that I ---.
MR. O'DELL:
If you have a coal miner, you have a potential for a new mine rescue team member.
CHAIR:
Okay. I mean, but we are hearing the gamut on this. And that's right.
MR. O'DELL:
And John --- I hate to say this again, but John can tell you that mine rescue teams are like a well-oiled machine, and they hate to split up because the know each other's moves.
CHAIR:
No, I understand that.
MR. O'DELL:
Do you understand?
CHAIR:
I've been to many contests.
MR. O'DELL:
But we've been involved in events where we've had to split these teams up with other members. And you know, it works. But we do what we have to do when we need to respond.
CHAIR:
Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
MR. O'DELL:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay. Our next speaker is Mr. Stanchek. Mr. Stanchek?
(Stanchek Exhibit One marked for
identification.)
MR. STANCHEK:
Hello, everybody. My name is Jeffrey Stanchek, S-T-A-N-C-H-E-K. I'm with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mine Safety. I am the chief of emergency response and training in the state. I am responsible for maintaining and operating the mine rescue stations and the training of the
state-sponsored mine rescue teams throughout the Commonwealth.
Just a synopsis of what we do in the Commonwealth, we have over 40 coal mines in the Commonwealth, 35 of which are covered by the
state-trained program. Also in the Commonwealth, there are ten underground stone mines, or non-coal mines, if you wish, and 100 percent of them are also in our program. In the eastern part of the state, there are 12 underground anthracite mines and which all are also under the state program. So with the exception of those five mines and two smaller mines outside of there, we cover basically almost 100 percent of all the mining activity in Pennsylvania.
Currently, what we also do in our state is we have what you would call --- I call it composite, cross-trained rescue teams. Due to when the mines were shutting down about ten years ago, we approached Cheryl McGill and Mr. James Petrie out of the district offices in western PA for permission to combine the coal and the non-coal mine rescue teams. In the current provision, there is nothing that says you can't do it.
So we combined the teams in stations in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, which is in the southwest corner, Ebensburg, PA, which is about central PA, and also in the Tremont area, which is eastern PA. We currently have two rescue teams in Uniontown, four in Ebensburg and two in the anthracite. All of those teams are basically composite stone and coal teams.
Now, what we do to make sure that everyone gets the proper training is we do cross training, which means we do go to different types of mines. So the stone boys get to see the coal, the coal gets to see the stone. And as a matter of fact, it's progressed so well that actually, a lot of our team captains are actually non-coal miners. So that is one of my questions that when you do go back to D.C. to discuss this --- I see a lot in there about coal mine rescue teams, but I see --- is it going to be that a coal --- you know, the rescue teams have to be coal miners, or can we continue to use the composite team makeup as we do right now? So that will be one of my comments to the panel that we could --- further discussion down the road.
All right. Also, I do have figures for you. We talked before about with the new rule. We are going to be complying with the new setup that's going to be coming that --- the Commonwealth is going to have to build a new rescue station to comply with the one-hour rule. What that does, it leaves one mine, as Pat knows from many e-mails, out of the loop there, so it'll be up to that mine to apply for an alternate remote mine rescue service.
It is going to cost the Commonwealth approximately $800,000 to build this rescue station. I have the figures here I can provide to you. These are just base estimates right now. But it's a sizeable investment with approximately $150,000 per year just to maintain that station. So there is a significant cost for maintaining these stations.
Once again, we are committed in the State of Pennsylvania to supply mine rescue service to all of our operators who ask for it. The previous commenter said that it would be wise to have mine rescue team members from each --- our current program requires a one per 50 rule from each of our operations. So every operation has at least one team member, and once they reach 50 employment underground, they're required to supply another one. What we are requiring to do is --- with the new act coming, we are going to require at least two people per mine rescue
--- you know, per mine. And once again, we're going to keep that 50 rule there, which means once they hit 50 underground employment, they're going to supply a third person.
Our plan, with Uniontown being --- if we do not get the change for the composite, let us say that it's going to be all non-coal and all coal teams, is Uniontown will be the main stone mine rescue station, because the stone regs will stay the same two-hour response time, and that'll comply with the law. And that's where most of the stone boys will report to.
What our plan is then is in the new Marion Center station, which is around Punxsutawney area, that will be a new mine rescue station there, as I mentioned. To have that, we're going to have four complete rescue teams out there, and in Ebensburg, four mine rescue teams there, with approximately 30 apparatus at each station to make sure that there is plenty of coverage to respond to any emergency.
Also, we have a question that will be coming a written comment from our Bureau officially about the anthracite. Currently, we have a provision of variance on the anthracite because of the number of people and the way to get around an anthracite mine is pretty tight, for two four-man teams. And in the current provisions, I see that is still proposed, however, with the exception of using any mine that has electrical face equipment. The problem is there will be two mines out there that's going to be using electrical face equipment using conventional mining. So what we have to decide is if we could continue with the four-man teams there, or do those two mines have to have a conventional six mine rescue team, which means then we have to increase to 12 team members? We are also in anticipation of increasing the amount of apparatus and equipment out in the anthracite. So this cost analysis I have given you also includes equipment going out to the anthracite region as well.
Also in our program, we do use currently Lake Lynn facility, which is in the southwest corner. We use the Bruceton facility up in Pittsburgh, PA. We use the Pioneer Tunnel, which is a tourist mine out in the anthracite, and the Seldom Seen Mine for our underground exercises.
I donít want to comment too much because there will be a written comment coming for some of the other things, but I do agree that the surface visits is a very good idea. However, I am a little concerned about the proposed requirement that all the teams must train underground at all the mines. I think that might be an undue hardship, not speaking for a small operator, but also from our end because of the amount of equipment that we may have to incur on the cost of that. For example, just to fill one of the Dršger
BG-4 apparatus would cost approximately $25 to do that. And as you can see, if I have 24 to 30 people per station and be able to do that, our costs will be significant if we have to do that on a continual basis.
Also, we would also like to know if MSHA is still proposing to use the MERD in lieu of one of the local contests. Currently, we do one MERD at Bruceton per year, all right, and we have recently started up our local contest. So if the MERD will be counted where we use the liaisons, state, federal MSHA people, we believe that would also count toward the local contest rule, and we would appreciate that. That is basically all I have. I'm free to answer any questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you. When you mentioned that the state provides coverage to the designated mines, you gave the underground coal and the underground stone and the anthracite mines. The state of --- I should say the state --- the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provides --- is that the designated
--- does the state-designated team the primary coverage?
MR. STANCHEK:
Yes, with the exception of five southwestern mines and two which would use a corporation from West Virginia. All the other mines in the state which signed a mutual aid agreement with us contract --- it has the training requirements in there, compensation, what happens if they're --- you know, if they're hurt on the road, if they're hurt at the mine, the rate of pay. All that is covered in there. And they are the primary --- you know, primary rescue teams for that mine.
CHAIR:
Okay. I take it from your comments --- I want to make sure I have this right. Rather, I should ask you --- rather, say I assume your training --- you mentioned you train at Lake Lynn, you train at Bruceton. Do you train at the covered mines?
MR. STANCHEK:
Currently, we do not. We do not currently train at the mines. We have been having MERDs or underground training at some of these facilities. However, to bring 14 team members --- in order to do a proper underground training with a mine rescue team at a mine site, in my opinion, you have to have the two rescue teams there. That means that's 14-plus people. Now, with the new laws, with the new MINER Act, you have the SCSR problems. I understand that the SCBAs that they use right now can be used in lieu of the SCSRs. However, the problem with these small mines, if you have a small, one-unit mine, now you're going to be taking 14-plus people underground plus observers plus instructors plus the NIOSH folks, you know, plus if you want to do it right, you want to smoke up part of the mine so you can have --- you know, you're basically asking that operation to shut down for the day.
CHAIR:
Well, please, you know, specifically in your comments, let us know how you do it now ---
MR. STANCHEK:
Right.
CHAIR:
--- you know, if you had to do it at each underground covered mine that impacted that. I'm asking everybody sort of to give --- be as specific
--- you mentioned that if you had to do training at all underground mines, that would be an undue hardship. Be specific in your comments.
MR. STANCHEK:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Please, everybody in here, I cannot overemphasize the importance of being very specific in any comments you submit to us before the record closes on November 9th. The composite team, I gather --- when you used the term composite team, I think, you're talking about metal, non-metal and coal?
MR. STANCHEK:
Right. I understand that the term composite can mean something else, ---
CHAIR:
Right. In the MINER Act.
MR. STANCHEK:
--- but, you know ---.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. STANCHEK:
But I'll put it this way. It works for us right now. It really does. And once again, if we're going to split these guys up, we are going to be losing quality mine rescue team members off of those teams that have ten-plus years of training in mine rescue. So you know, we'll do what we have to do, but you see what our problem's going to be. Now we're going to have to retrain new people to come on these rescue teams.
CHAIR:
And so why --- tell me exactly why you say you will be losing team members.
MR. STANCHEK:
Because what we'll have to do is --- if the current rule stands the way I read it is, a coal mine rescue team can only respond to a coal mine.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. STANCHEK:
And if that's the case, we're going to have to take, you know, up to half the mine rescue teams off of some of our teams. Now they'll have to be only the primary response team to a non-coal mine and then we'll lose those quality guys and we're going to have to start bringing up mine rescue team members. And I'll mention a person's name, Mr. Ty Coleman from ICG Group, that he made a very good statement. It takes three to five years to make a good mine rescue team member. And that's how long it takes. And you know, we have people that's been on a team five years plus, and you know, we hate to see that happen.
MR. MACLEOD:
So you actually have captains for some of these --- on the teams that are metal and non-metal operations ---
MR. STANCHEK:
Yes.
MR. MACLEOD:
--- that potentially, they may no longer be able to serve in that capacity because of the ---?
MR. STANCHEK:
If the current reg looks the way I read it, interpretations, you know, it basically says --- it's, you know a little gray area there, but it says coal mine, non-coal, you know, so it looks like that they --- you know, that they may have to go back to being a strict non-coal mine rescue team and a coal mine rescue team. And I'd also urge our anthracite, because right now we do it --- it's also being applied in the anthracite too.
MR. MACLEOD:
Thanks.
CHAIR:
Okay, Mr. Stanchek. Thank you very much. Yes, you can pass that to us. Thank you very much for your comments. And again, Mr. Stanchek, before --- I want to ask Mr. Stanchek and reiterate to everybody here, please be specific when you send your comments in. Please be specific about impacts. Please be specific if you make comments, if you make conclusions. Please provide supporting documentation. This is very important.
Is there anybody else who wishes to make a statement, comments? Anybody else? If there's no one else who wishes to make a statement, then at this point, I'm going to conclude the Mine Safety and Health Administration's public hearing on mine rescue teams for underground coal mines. As I do so, I want to reiterate that we appreciate very much the time and attention that you gave to this matter this morning. For those of you who came, and I see obviously a lot of you came, and who did not testify, we appreciate your interest in the rulemaking, your interest in mine safety and health, and more particularly, your interest in this rulemaking. But I'm hoping that I can count on some members in the audience to provide additional information to MSHA before the record closes on November 9th.
What I am going to do, and it's going to be a little bit of a deviation from the hearing --- excuse me, from the proposed rule notice, I am going to start the public hearing on mine rescue team equipment proposed rule. I'm going to start that at one o'clock so that --- and that proposal relates, as you know, to underground coal and underground metal and non-metal. So I want to put everybody on notice that I would like to start that hearing at one o'clock. At this time, we will conclude the hearing. Thank you.
OFF RECORD DISCUSSION
CHAIR:
We will now reopen the hearing, the Mine Safety and Health Administration's hearing on mine rescue team proposal. Mr. Stanchek had a comment. I appreciate it.
MR. STANCHEK:
My apologies.
CHAIR:
At this time, we've reopened the Mine Safety and Health Administration's proposal on mine rescue teams.
MR. STANCHEK:
My comment is toward the certification form that is enclosed in the proposed proposal. As we are aware, once again, in Pennsylvania, we have a state program which will be using composite teams. My comment and question is going to be who ultimately will be responsible for the filling out and the completion of this certification form since we are basically, I'm going to use the word responsible, and in charge of the mine rescue program? Will it be the operator which is supplying the mine rescue team members, or is it going to be the Commonwealth, which is providing the training?
CHAIR:
So the State of Pennsylvania is the designated --- provides the designated mine rescue --- but the members come from the operator?
MR. STANCHEK:
It says the --- the memo says it's the operator, so our question and comment is clarification on who will be responsible for having these records, keeping them on record and ultimately responsible for making sure --- providing to MSHA that these forms are being filled out properly and on record?
CHAIR:
Okay. Well, wait a minute. Just give me one minute. Okay. The way the form --- now, let's get this right; okay? The form --- the regulation says, for each mine rescue team designated to provide mine rescue coverage at an underground coal mine, the mine operator shall send to the district manager an annual statement certifying that the team member --- that the team meets the requirements of this part and their various --- all of the requirements are that they physically --- they meet the physical requirements, they meet the training requirements and they meet all the other requirements. So I guess it's the operator's certification.
MR. STANCHEK:
Okay. That's ---.
CHAIR:
Yes. And actually, the form --- the suggested form that we included in the proposal says, operator's certification of mine rescue team qualifications.
MR. STANCHEK:
That's my only comment.
CHAIR:
Anything else?
MR. STANCHEK:
That's all I have. That's all I wanted was some clarification. Thank you.
CHAIR:
Well, you know, they said, be careful what you do. But since we've opened up the mine rescue team, anybody else have any comment? Thank you. I appreciate it. So at this point, we will conclude the mine rescue team.
* * * * * * * *
HEARING CONCLUDED AT 1:37 P.M.
* * * * * * * *
16
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.
(814) 536-8908
Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc.
(814) 536-8908